ArticleBMC medical education2024
Stress and value: the student perspective on utilizing real vs. actor patients in objective structured clinical examinations.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why don't we teach medical students to work in chaos?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) to be one of the most reliable tools in assessing clinical performance; however in Pediatrics they primarily use manikins, simulators or parent actors which limits the comprehensiveness of the assessment. In our Pediatric Clerkship, medical students are evaluated using a standardized rubric during a clinical evaluation exercise (CEX) with real patients. This study assessed medical students' perceived stress levels and the educational value of the CEX compared an OSCE. We hypothesized there would be equal stress and value for students with the CEX experience compared to the OSCE.
methodsThird year students anonymously completed questionnaires after required Pediatric CEX and Internal Medicine OSCE evaluations from July 2016-June 2017. The questionnaire included questions from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, a validated tool used to assess feelings of stress and perceived value of an exercise.
resultsA total of 147 and 145 questionnaires were completed after the CEX and OSCE. There were no differences between groups regarding levels of "nervousness" (p = 0.543) and "relaxation" (p = 0.055); students felt more "at ease" (p = 0.002) and less "pressure" (p < 0.001) during the CEX. Students perceived the CEX to be more useful and important to improve skills compared to the OSCE for the history taking, physical exam and interpersonal skills.
conclusionsOur results indicate that the CEX was associated with lower stress levels and had higher perceived value when compared to the OSCE. This study supports the usefulness of incorporating real patients into the clinical evaluation of medical students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.